By Kevin Stoda, social scientist and educator
I enjoy the various CSI series(es) immensely but we viewers must remember that--like the other CBS-TV series, Numbers, --are largely fictional in what they portrays as the real world of investigation, law, order, and justice in America is totally under-funded agencies (personnel) or filled with bullies, ill-equipped, and incompetents. In short, our non-fiction is still sadly too often the realm of false arrests and bad policing (or investigating) in America. Potential Jurors absolutely need to note this.
I have been watching a lot of CSI reruns this summer. I watch them all currently on AXN-TV. I have seen CSI: Miami,
and the original CSI set in Las Vegas.
I also watch NCSI, which is a Navy spin-off of the other CSI and earlier JAG TV series
I enjoy these various series(es) immensely but we viewers must remember that--like the other CBS-TV series, Numbers,
--are largely fictional in what they portrays as the real world of investigation, law, order, and justice in America.
WARNING TO VIEWERS
Some people (not just viewers of CSI) have long forgotten that CSI stands for "Crime Scene Investigation". The shows were originally created by Anthony E. Zuiker and produced by Jerry Bruckheimer.
As we watch the TV programs, we see that mistakes are made but we often see that the investigators typically recover from false leads, false assumptions, and even faulty evidence or diagnostics of the crime scene.
EXAMPLE OF NON-RELIABILITY OF HAIR SAMPLING
One of the common examples of evidence used (or misused) in TV investigations of a crime has been the finding of and usage of hair samples to determine if someone was present at a crime scene.
"Hair evidence is one of the most common types of evidence encountered in criminal investigations. During the course of the normal hair-growth cycle, hairs are readily lost from individuals, and these hairs may be transferred during the course of a criminal activity."
"The forensic analysis of hair evidence can be extremely valuable in the examination of physical evidence by (1) demonstrating that there may have been an association between a suspect and a crime scene or a suspect and a victim or (2) demonstrating that no evidence exists for an association between a suspect and a crime scene or a suspect and a victim. Although the science of microscopic hair examination can never result in an identification, that is, conclude that a hair came from one individual to the exclusion of all others, the vast amount of both macroscopic and microscopic information available from hair analysis can provide a strong basis for an association and certainly provides strong exculpatory evidence. The final aim of any forensic examination must be to provide statements based on objective scientific observation that will be of value in a court of law or to any interested party involved in an investigation."
Some critiques of hair researchers in American courtrooms still find that hair sample science in American courtrooms is still operating at a jury-opinion level similar to "snake oil" medication sales of the 19th century. In other words, a hair expert is brought into a courtroom and jargon implying the miracles of modern science and technology are used to bedazzle the audience into accepting the validity of a piece of hair convicting a man of murder.
